Allowed

Philomina and Others v. the District Collector,Thrissur and Ors.

Kerala HC10 Jan 2018WP(C)/494/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed a long-standing delay in appointing an Arbitrator for land acquisition compensation claims under the National Highways Act, 1956. It directed the Government to appoint an Arbitrator within three months and required pending proceedings to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Government of Kerala to appoint an Arbitrator within three months and to complete proceedings within six months.

Philomina and Others Vs the District Collector,Thrissur and… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 20TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 494 of 2010

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1 PHILOMINA,

¶8

W/O. AVITTAMPILLY MICHEAL, CHANTHAPURA DESOM, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶9

2 ADIMU @ ADIMUNI,

¶10

S/O. MARATHU KOCHI MUHAMMED, CHANTHAPURA DESOM, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶11

3 THANKAMANI,

¶12

D/O. CHETTIYATTIL VELAYUDHAN, CHANTHAPURA DESOM, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶13

4 AMBIKA, W/O. KAYATH MUKUNDAN,

¶14

CHANTHAPURA DESOM, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶15

5 RUKIYA, D/O. THALIKKAL HYDROSE,

¶16

CHANTHAPURA DESOM, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶18

SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶19

RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (ARBITRATOR APPOINTED UNDER THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY ACT, 1956), THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶21

2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, THRISSUR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, KODUNGALLUR, BYE PASS, KODUNGALLUR, PIN- 680 001.

¶22

3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., ROAD AND SURFACE TRANSPORT MINISTRY, NEW DELHI.

¶23

..2/-

¶24

..2..

¶25

WP(C).No. 494 of 2010

¶26

ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED

¶27

4. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT OFFICER.

¶28

ADDITIONAL R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.11.2010.

¶29

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JESTIN MATHEW R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY KALLAMPILLY, S.C

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-01-2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO. 27983 OF 2007 AND W.P.(C)NO. 31955 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

Msd.

¶32

WP(C).No. 494 of 2010

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTES WITH THE AWARD PASSED BY
	THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL IN THE CASE OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED CONCERNING THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE 5TH PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P7:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P8:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P9:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P10:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.08.2009.
EXHIBIT P11:	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS CONCERNING WHICH EXTS P6 TO P10 DATED 11.08.2009.
RESPONDENT(S)'	EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.E6.16376/10 DATED 24.04.2010 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE B:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.48249/B1/09/RD DATED 25.06.2010 FROM THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶36

WP(C).No. 494 of 2010

¶37

ANNEXURE C: A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.E6-2010/16376/8 DATED 15.07.2010 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶38

//TRUE COPY// P.S.TO JUDGE

¶39

Msd.

¶40

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶41

========================== W.P.(C) Nos.494 J, 27401-A and

¶42

31955 of 2010 -T

¶43

=============================== Dated this the 10^th day of , January, 2018

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

These three cases are being considered and

¶46

disposed of finally together, since they involve similar contentions concerning similar issues and have sought prayers that are analogous to one other.

¶47

The writ petitioners in all these cases appear to be persons whose lands were acquired for various projects in the Thrissur District, under the rigour of section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short 'the NH Act'). The constitutive allegations in these writ petitions are that, even though the acquisition of the properties have been completed long ago, the competent Authorities have not taken steps even

¶48

to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate their claim for compensation, with respect to the acquisition. The prayer in these writ petitions essentially is to command the State of Kerala to appoint an Arbitrator, and to determine the compensation amount payable to the petitioners under the provisions of the NH Act.

¶49

¶50

W.P.(C) Nos.494 - J, 27401-A and 31955 of 2010 -T

¶51

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶52

the petitioners in these various writ petitions namely; Sri.Sreekumar G.(Chelur) and Sri.T.M.Abdul Latiff and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents.

¶53

Even though, these writ petitions have been filed in the year 2010, it is distressing to note that nothing has been placed on record as to the further developments in this matter. The pleading show that the primary allegation of the petitioners is that no Arbitrator has been appointed and I see that the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Government of Kerala only go to the extend of saying that they have identified a particular person to be the Arbitrator to be appointed and that orders will be issued to appoint him within a period of three months. These counter affidavits are all of the year 2010, but the Government has chosen not to place on record anything to show whether any Arbitrator has been appointed or whether any awards have been passed.

¶54

¶55

W.P.(C) Nos.494 - J, 27401-A and 31955 of 2010 -T

¶56

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assert that no awards have been passed until now and they are also unaware as to whether any Arbitrator has been appointed or whether any proceeding for it has been taken. This, I am constrained to say, is a very sorry state of affairs and I do not see any reason why these writ petition should be kept pending here awaiting response from the respondents, who unfortunately have all been dragging their feet for reasons that are confounding.

¶57

In the absence of specific information and

¶58

pleadings on record, I am unable to issue any affirmative orders, as has been prayed for by the petitioners. However, I notice that it is the specific assertion of the petitioners, which remain uncontroverted, that their lands have been acquired under the provisions of the NH Act. In such circumstances, it is obvious that they are entitled to compensation as per law and that this can be arrived at and computed only through the mechanism under the Act, by appointing an Arbitrator. Therefore, if no Arbitrator has yet been appointed, it is ineluctable that the 1^st respondent Government of Kerala is

¶59

¶60

W.P.(C) Nos.494 - J, 27401-A and 31955 of 2010 -T

¶61

obligated to do so as early as possible, as to complete the process as is mandated by the Act.

¶62

The learned Government Pleader at this time,

¶63

submits on instructions that as far as W.P.(C) Nos.27401 of 2010 and 31955 of 2010 are concerned, the competent Arbitrator is the District Collector concerned and that with respect to W.P.(C) No.494 of 2010, the State of Kerala is going to appoint an Arbitrator very soon.

¶64

In the conspectus of the above, I order W.P.(C) No.494 of 2010 directing the Government of Kerala to appoint an Arbitrator, if such an appointment has not already been done, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in terms of the NH Act. The Arbitrator so appointed shall complete the arbitration proceedings after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties and in terms of the provisions of the NH Act, within a further period of six months from the date on which he is appointed. If an Arbitrator has already been appointed, then he shall complete the proceedings pending before him, within

¶65

six months from the date of receipt of the judgment as

¶66

¶67

W.P.(C) Nos.494 - J, 27401-A and 31955 of 2010 -T

¶68

directed above.

¶69

As regards W.P.(C) Nos.27401 of 2010 and 31955

¶70

of 2010 are concerned, since the competent Arbitrators are stated to be the concerned District Collectors, it shall be incumbent upon them to complete the arbitration proceedings pending before them, if they are still pending, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. It is so ordered. On the other hand, if the proceedings have been completed by now, then the District Collector shall issue necessary orders to the writ petitioners without any further delay.

¶71

These writ petitions are thus disposed of, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, I refrain from making any order as to costs and direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶72

Sd/-

¶73

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE.

SB/15/01/2018

// true copy //

P.A to Judge

Philomina and Others v. the District Collector,Thrissur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philomina and Others v. the District Collector,Thrissur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaipuzha Coconut Producer Vs Kerala State Road Transport

Jayakrishnan Vs the Kerala Stae Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Sabna U.K Vs State Bank of India

M. Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Vivekanand Venkatram Cona Vs the District Collector

S.J.Adersh Vs Dr.B.Sreekumar